도박장소개설
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles, a single stop “high stop” set out in D (hereinafter “D”) written in the facts charged by the Defendant, which was operated by the Defendant, is limited to the degree of temporary recreation, and the Defendant did not operate the D for profit.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of opening gambling or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of opening gambling, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The crime of gambling as referred to in Article 247 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is an independent crime that is separate from the crime of gambling in which gambling is established by opening a gambling place under the control and self-replace as a resident for the purpose of profit-making.
The term "gambling" means that the participating party contests the acquisition and loss of the property by betting the property, and the term "for-profit purposes" means the intent to gain an indirect benefit from the property in return for the opening of gambling, not the direct consideration of the opening of gambling but the benefit to be indirectly obtained through the opening of gambling, the purpose of profit is recognized, and it does not require that the benefit was actually gained (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 23, 2008). On the other hand, with respect to whether the degree of temporary entertainment was limited as the limit of illegality in the crime of gambling, it shall be determined in detail by referring to the time and place of gambling, the social status and degree of property of the gambling person, the nature of the property, and all other circumstances that led to the gambling (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3970, Oct. 23, 2008; 200Do5565, Jan. 26, 1985).